May 19, 2004
Rumsfeld garners criticism for prisoner abuse
New York - May 17, 2004. The latest report from Media Tenor, an independent institute examining the presidential election media coverage, shows that, as the abuse of prisoners in Iraq became the primary focus of TV evening news, President Bush largely escaped media attention and criticism, while the coverage of Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld was both more extensive and largely negative in tone. In the third week of May, 19.5% of the reports on Bush were negative, while Rumsfeld received most of the criticism, with 41% of negative reports.
The focus on the presidential campaigns decreased, as TV networks featured more reports on Rumsfeld than on the President and his challenger Senator John Kerry.
Kerry rarely managed to garner TV journalists’ interest last week. ABC did not feature a single statement on or about Kerry. On CBS, there was hardly any coverage at all.
Download complete report at http://www.mediatenor.com/US-Election_040514.PDF
Posted by Isadora Badi at May 19, 2004 09:42 AMKerry rarely managed to garner TV journalists’ interest last week. ABC did not feature a single statement on or about Kerry. On CBS, there was hardly any coverage at all.
I don’t think that’s surprising. It’s still early. Kerry hasn’t even gotten the Democratic nomination, yet.
The focus will be on the administration until the debates start. This just illustrates why I’m stoked about Bush’s falling approval ratings but not worried about Kerry’s numbers holding steady.
Our appointed neocon puppet’s policies mean thousands of dead and maimed Americans and Iraqis in an unnecessary war, growing hatred of the US, soaring trade deficits and unemployment with windfall profits for the top 0.5%. Kerry and the terrorists are just laying back and letting him hang himself. Bush doesn’t care how many people he kills or maimes or whether we become a third world economy, as long as he gets re-elected. What will Rove’s October surprise be?
Posted by: bayviking at May 19, 2004 01:21 PMI do agree with the essence of what bayviking said: that pretty much all Kerry has to do is “show up” and let Bush implode.
The war was begun with bad faith and essentially a scam job on the American public and the world. That’s pretty serious. At least in Vietnam the Domino Theory could hold some water some of the time. The WMD excuse turns out to have been the “W” of Mass Destruction instead. Mass destruction of wealth and property, and some non-trivial scale of destruction of lives, too.
The economy is always a nonsensical thing to pin on a presidency, but even there we get a lot of half-truths regarding this “recovery” we’re in. Jobs, yes, but hair nets and name tags weren’t exactly what the former engineers and project managers had in mind.
And where is the big crackdown on corporate governance? Andrew Filipowsky stole $70 million from his customers, pocketed the money, and filed bankruptcy for Divine Corp., and he’s still out being a bad influence in other sectors of the corporate world (Vice Chairman of Blue Rhino—where his brother-in-law is CEO, for those keeping track). Martha’s Stewart’s going to jail for 1/210th that amount, is not the right “example” to set.
Anyway, I think Republicans are vastly underestimating the undercurrent of American rage building out here. Even in fly-over country you can feel it.
Bayviking said: “Kerry and the terrorists are just laying back and letting him [Bush] hang himself.”
Whoa, there, bayviking. Do you really want to frame the presidential election as a contest between Bush on one side and Kerry and the terrorists on the other?
Posted by: Martin at May 20, 2004 01:17 AMMartin:
“Do you really want to frame the presidential election as a contest between Bush on one side and Kerry and the terrorists on the other?”
You know the Republicans will (and are).
The latest rumor is that George Soros is a terrorist financier.
Good point about the corporate governance issue, Ciggy. Why is it that Halliburton can get caught ripping off the federal government, American tax payers, and the US Army, and all they get is told they have to pay back the money and then get another multi-billion dollar contract?
Shouldn’t the CEO or CFO be going to jail and the government contracts be withheld? To do anything else seems like interfering with free market forces. Bad companies wither, good companies grow strong. Whatever happened to that?
Posted by: Lee at May 20, 2004 09:27 AM
